Religion.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Isn't that what I just said?

Gravity is easy to understand. It works like magnets. What am I not getting exactly? Maybe you should have higher expectations of me, instead of false judgment. If you WERE judging anyway, I'm not saying you were.

I'm not judging you. You said that the laws of gravity could be false.

I said your example was faulty. It showed misunderstanding of gravity.

[Phoenix Wright]

I'm not judging you. You said that the laws of gravity could be false.

I said your example was faulty. It showed misunderstanding of gravity.

I know..."If you WERE judging anyway, I'm not saying you were."

I'll let you know now, I have a bad way with words. One thing I'm horrible at, is vocabulary, and I don't make an effort to understand much more than I do anyway. I learn the ones I'm supposed to at school, then I'm done.

I do understand gravity, but the laws can be broken. Or at least the famous quote can be. That is what I was saying.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I know..."If you WERE judging anyway, I'm not saying you were."

I'll let you know now, I have a bad way with words. One thing I'm horrible at, is vocabulary, and I don't make an effort to understand much more than I do anyway. I learn the ones I'm supposed to at school, then I'm done.

I do understand gravity, but the laws can be broken. Or at least the famous quote can be. That is what I was saying.

Alright, I understand better. But that really isn't much of a point there. That quote can be broken, but the logic behind gravity still stands. :D

[Phoenix Wright]

Alright, I understand better. But that really isn't much of a point there. That quote can be broken, but the logic behind gravity still stands. :D

Yep....

Start a new argument I guess. XD

[Defeatist Elitist]

Just out of interest Citrusman, what IS your standing on evolution?

I'd like to discuss that.

[Leonri]

I do understand gravity

I very much doubt anyone on this forum truly understands the warping of the space-time continuum by mass.

Edited November 30, 2008 by Leonri

[Ragnell]

First of all, they have, IN LABS actually recreated a situation in which simple proteins could be created. So yeah, life can start itself.

Big Bang: We've actually been experimenting with things. We CAN turn matter into energy, and vice versa, it's just really hard. Big Bang has a lot of evidence.

So, we can't understand God, because God is above us, he doesn't function under our laws, etc. Basically, he doesn't function in reality, thus he is unreal. Which means he doesn't exist. Trust me, saying that God exists without any sort of Science or logic on him is REALLY retarded.

Besides, tell me seriously how it is at all possible for him to create an unstoppable force and an immovable object. Just do it.

Firstly, because scientists can do it doesn't mean it can happen in nature. And if it did happen, what are the odds of something that complex happening in nature without something (*cough* God) promting it to happen.

Secondly, I know we can turn matter into energy and that wasn't what I was saying at all. And I am pretty sure the Big Bang did happen. But what came before that? All that mass had to come from somewhere. And the energy released in the Big Bang came from somewhere as well. Neither mass or energy can be created. And when we find where that energy came from, we'll wonder where the next energy source came from. Energy cannot be created or destroyed by any force inside the laws of nature. Which pretty much shows either are laws are totally wrong or some force above science exists.

And finally, God can create an unstoppable force and immovable object because he functions above all our scientific laws. The whole idea that he is three people in one pretty much shows that.

Edited November 30, 2008 by Ragnell

[Balcerzak]

I agree completely. As I said before, I am Catholic, and don't believe completely in the whole Adam and Eve thing. But still, how do you explain how the first organic molecule appeared? It would have to come from a non-living thing. And abiogenisis was disproved a long time ago. Rocks don't evolve into living things. So the evolution argument is pointless here.

Incorrect, abiogenesis in ordinary circumstances may have been disproven (e.g. maggots from rotting meat with no outside influence), but abiogenesis as a whole has not. In fact it is a thriving field currently, if I remember correctly, and has even demonstrated that in certain situations amino acids (the building blocks for proteins) can be created from inorganic materials.

And even if abiogenesis were impossible, that wouldn't discount evolution per se, as evolution is simply the documented speciation caused by a combination of random chance, environmental pressures, and natural selection. It would tend to put a damper on a completely materialistic/naturalistic worldview, yes, but discount evolution? No.

And if you believe in the Big Bang and science, how did the Big Bang occur? One of the most famous laws in science is matter cannot be created or destroyed. And Einstein's work connected matter and energy, so energy cannot be created/destroyed either. Therefore, some form of energy had to fuel the Big bang. And where did that energy come from, and where did the next energy come from. Somewhere along the line, the laws of physics are disregarded. And if that doesn't support some kind of intelligent design, I don't know what does.

The Big Bang has nothing to do with creation or destruction of matter (or energy), rather it deals with the expansion of space-time. Come back when you're not filled with misconceptions.

Just a quick thing, but isn't evolution still just a theory, or am I just behind with my scientific stuff? There's been a ton of evolution stuff being thrown around. Just curious.

No, just no. I posted a link to the Talk Origins page debunking said fallacious claim earlier, on the exact same page you posted this, no less. Scientific theory <-> fact.

I thought gravity was a law, but what do I know of the nitty-gritty aspects of science?

Gravity is both a law and a theory.

"A 'law' differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law." --Wikipedia

So the law of gravity would be F = GmM/r², while the theory of gravity would be the broader set of related equations, findings, and descriptions, including such things as Einstein's general relativity, differential geometry, Kepler's Laws of planetary motion, etc.

Some might even place the various (competing) models for quantum gravity under this umbrella, but I maintain that it is improper to do so until they have accumulated a body of supporting evidence. Similarly, I disagree with people who discuss String "Theory" as such, as this imprecise use of language is in my opinion one of the primary causes for public misconception on what exactly is meant by a formal scientific theory, and seems to lend credence to anti-evolution attacks.

*Cough* Laws of gravity can be extremely false! Throw a baseball 7 miles per second, and it will no longer be in control of [Earth's] gravity.

It's already been demonstrated, but as a physicist I am compelled to say once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Demonstrating a use of the concept of escape velocity does nothing to invalidate the law of gravity, but is merely an application of said law.

The Big Bang in my opinion, is obsolete. Believing in the Big Bang is like believing in God ya know. A small, small dense ball just suddenly exploding out of nowhere and creating the never-ending universe, yeah right. You believe it happened, so why can't people like us believe in God?

You, again, have a terrible misconception on what Big Bang Theory actually is about. There is no "explosion", there is no "small, small dense ball". Do some actual research before talking on the subject, please.

In case people didn't know, the people who wrote the Bible were obviously educated, thus knowing science pretty well. They were the logical ones of their time. Why are they not logical now? Because they are dead, and things they believed have been disproved? Exactly.

That goes for our time, what you consider "logic" today, might make you a complete lunatic if you believed it tomorrow.

Just a thought, logic today can be illogical tomorrow. But faith will NEVER end.

You're confusing logic with common sense. Logic is a formal system. There have been few to no changes in logic since it's conception.* It is logicially possible that the entirety of the laws of physics change tomorrow. In fact, all atomic statements are logically possible, provided of course they are non-contradictory. So the logic will not change, but rather one's underlying assumptions (put another way, one's common sense) may be overturned.

*I am of course here talking of classic, bivalent logic. Logics that do not postulate the law of the excluded middle, the law of noncontradiction, or other basic postulates need not apply. Also, I seem to recall some logics which take a different definition for the conditional, allowing a false antecedent and a false consequent to made the whole conditional false, rather than the traditional approach which is that any conditional with a false antecedent has a true truth value.

[Phoenix Wright]

Just out of interest Citrusman, what IS your standing on evolution?

I'd like to discuss that.

Sorry for the late reply, site was down.

Evolution on animals: As said before, this is a proven fact. Plus with the finches on Galapagos Islands (I think that is the bird Darwin studied with), the finches SHOWED within a year, that they had adapted to their new environment.

I am not aware of any other animal being that fast.

Evolution on Humans: Of course it happens, why wouldn't it? Evolution doesn't disprove God's existence. Maybe Adam DID come from an animal before, maybe God created Adam, and humans started to evolve from there. I would just like to add that Adam and Eve weren't white....

Evolution takes place physically, and can manipulate DNA to change to adapt to the environment better. Can it take place mentally too? Obviously. I saw on the Discovery channel once, a fish 220 Million years old, with the most advanced brain of it's time. Because of this few scientists believe that those fish evolved into the ancestors we deny our evolution from. (AKA, the monkey)

That's my take.

I very much doubt anyone on this forum truly understands the warping of the space-time continuum by mass.

Spelled continuum wrong. ;)

One's who understand gravity, will still comprehend.

Balcerzak: Read my above posts dude, we already talked that out. Stop trying to make me look dumb man.

You, again, have a terrible misconception on what Big Bang Theory actually is about. There is no "explosion", there is no "small, small dense ball". Do some actual research before talking on the subject, please.

What I said was about the same dude. I can make a metaphor of the dense initial condition (or value) as a ball. Then, when it "explodes" it expands and expands and expands.

[Ragnell]

Incorrect, abiogenesis in ordinary circumstances may have been disproven (e.g. maggots from rotting meat with no outside influence), but abiogenesis as a whole has not. In fact it is a thriving field currently, if I remember correctly, and has even demonstrated that in certain situations amino acids (the building blocks for proteins) can be created from inorganic materials.

And even if abiogenesis were impossible, that wouldn't discount evolution per se, as evolution is simply the documented speciation caused by a combination of random chance, environmental pressures, and natural selection. It would tend to put a damper on a completely materialistic/naturalistic worldview, yes, but discount evolution? No.

The Big Bang has nothing to do with creation or destruction of matter (or energy), rather it deals with the expansion of space-time. Come back when you're not filled with misconceptions.

No, just no. I posted a link to the Talk Origins page debunking said fallacious claim earlier, on the exact same page you posted this, no less. Scientific theory <-> fact.

Gravity is both a law and a theory.

"A 'law' differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law." --Wikipedia

So the law of gravity would be F = GmM/r², while the theory of gravity would be the broader set of related equations, findings, and descriptions, including such things as Einstein's general relativity, differential geometry, Kepler's Laws of planetary motion, etc.

Some might even place the various (competing) models for quantum gravity under this umbrella, but I maintain that it is improper to do so until they have accumulated a body of supporting evidence. Similarly, I disagree with people who discuss String "Theory" as such, as this imprecise use of language is in my opinion one of the primary causes for public misconception on what exactly is meant by a formal scientific theory, and seems to lend credence to anti-evolution attacks.

It's already been demonstrated, but as a physicist I am compelled to say once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Demonstrating a use of the concept of escape velocity does nothing to invalidate the law of gravity, but is merely an application of said law.

You, again, have a terrible misconception on what Big Bang Theory actually is about. There is no "explosion", there is no "small, small dense ball". Do some actual research before talking on the subject, please.

You're confusing logic with common sense. Logic is a formal system. There have been few to no changes in logic since it's conception.* It is logicially possible that the entirety of the laws of physics change tomorrow. In fact, all atomic statements are logically possible, provided of course they are non-contradictory. So the logic will not change, but rather one's underlying assumptions (put another way, one's common sense) may be overturned.

*I am of course here talking of classic, bivalent logic. Logics that do not postulate the law of the excluded middle, the law of noncontradiction, or other basic postulates need not apply. Also, I seem to recall some logics which take a different definition for the conditional, allowing a false antecedent and a false consequent to made the whole conditional false, rather than the traditional approach which is that any conditional with a false antecedent has a true truth value.

But the odds that suddenly, the first organic molecule would come from inorganic material is pretty slim. And what I meant by evolution doesn't apply was that evolution can't explain how the first organic molecule came about because inorganic materials can't evolve. I believe that there is evolution. Evolution in general is about as close to proven as anything on Earth. I don't, however, believe that all there has ever been is evolution. I believe that there is God as well. Science and religion can work together quite easily.

I do believe in the Big Bang, by the way. But what I was saying is that there must have been something before that because the energy and mass released in the "Bang" had to come from somewhere. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so at some point scientific laws were ignored and the first mass and energy were first created. And if the laws of science were ignored then, why could it not have been some divine being ABOVE science that started these laws.

Man, I really worded some of that crappily.

And about what people are saying about if some of the bible is wrong, the whole thing is wrong. The bible isn't wrong, it just doesn't tell exactly what happened. It tells stories and metaphors to explain LOADS of stuff. I hope nobody who reads Revelations believes everything will happen exactly like it describes. There are parables throughout the bible, and some were simply not labeled as parables. Plus, that was the style of writing back then. They didn't simply tell anything, they used craploads of metaphors and stories to explain it.

[YokaiKnight]

I failed to see how committing homosexuality a sin according to Christianity. That's one thing I cannot find any logic for...

Leviticus 18:22:

"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:

"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

There are more.

[Cynthia]

Also, if you are not a Christian, what is the point of you saying the bolded? That is just a thought...

I don't know? Why do people who don't hate gays call people "fags?"

Edit: Killing is against the law, so it's impossible to follow that word for word, which is why the bible shouldn't be used to justify things because we can't even follow it entirely anymore.

Edited November 30, 2008 by Cynthia

[Dies Mori]

Evolution on Humans: Of course it happens, why wouldn't it? Evolution doesn't disprove God's existence.

Out of interest, say that it was a factor disproving God's existence; would you choose not believe it as authentic as you presently do?

[Phoenix]

Gravity: Yeah gravity is both convenient and extremely annoying for me. I sleep on a computer bunk. Basically a bunk bed with a computer desk on the bottom instead of another bed. With that said if I make one wrong move while getting out of bed in the morning, I'm in for a five and a half foot drop to the ground. That's why I stay in bed an extra hour or two to make sure I'm awake fully. None the less without gravity aka larger attracting the smaller, we'd would be in a world of trouble. Gravity is something that allows us to exist. It is definite, it is unchangable and undeniable. Evolution on the other hand is an exuse to discount the existence of a God. It is founded on the belief that there is no God to make it happen. Thus it relies sole on natural selection, genetics, and constant freak accidents. Gravity and Evolution are not similar in the least. You've got Gravity which is a constant and infinite effect on us and everything, and then you have evolution, a theory started by someone to explain where humans came from because he didn't believe it was a God who'd done the act. There's no theory of Gravity folks! And there's no law of Evolution either! Evolution is as valid as religion. The only difference is religion is illogical and based on faith while evolution is slightly logical and based on genetics, fossils, and pretty colorful charts with skeletons pasted on them.

Homosexuality: It's another sexual orientation, just like bisexuality, and beastiality. Is it a sin? Yep as clearly stated, but will people change? Nah. Also just because people are gay doesn't mean they should be looked down upon. They're sinning in the act of homosexuality, not by living while being homosexual. There's no exuse for being a prick to gays just because they are who they are. Find a better reason to hate them. Hate them because they like a different sports team or something.

[Leonri]

But the odds that suddenly, the first organic molecule would come from inorganic material is pretty slim. And what I meant by evolution doesn't apply was that evolution can't explain how the first organic molecule came about because inorganic materials can't evolve. I believe that there is evolution. Evolution in general is about as close to proven as anything on Earth. I don't, however, believe that all there has ever been is evolution. I believe that there is God as well. Science and religion can work together quite easily.

I do believe in the Big Bang, by the way. But what I was saying is that there must have been something before that because the energy and mass released in the "Bang" had to come from somewhere. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so at some point scientific laws were ignored and the first mass and energy were first created. And if the laws of science were ignored then, why could it not have been some divine being ABOVE science that started these laws.

Probabilty means nothing in an infinite universe. The chance of that happening on one planet? One in billions. The fact that there are billions of planets for it to happen on, means a drastically higher chance. It may even be improbable for it not to happen. Earth just happened to be the planet that formed life.

Before the Big Bang, there was no time, as space-time was wrapped up in a singularity. Therefore, no time before the Big Bang. The matter was always there, not created, and neither was the energy.

Edited November 30, 2008 by Leonri

[Defeatist Elitist]

Probabilty means nothing in an infinite universe. The chance of that happening on one planet? One in billions. The fact that there are billions of planets for it to happen on, means a drastically higher chance. It may even be improbable for it not to happen. Earth just happened to be the planet that formed life.

Before the Big Bang, there was no time, as space-time was wrapped up in a singularity. Therefore, no time before the Big Bang. The matter was always there, not created, and neither was the energy.

Took the words right out of my mouth...

The chance of Abiogenesis occurring could well be a billion to one. There's several billion planets in our Galaxy ALONE. That sounds pretty good to me.

". Evolution on the other hand is an exuse to discount the existence of a God. It is founded on the belief that there is no God to make it happen. Thus it relies sole on natural selection, genetics, and constant freak accidents. Gravity and Evolution are not similar in the least. You've got Gravity which is a constant and infinite effect on us and everything, and then you have evolution, a theory started by someone to explain where humans came from because he didn't believe it was a God who'd done the act. There's no theory of Gravity folks! And there's no law of Evolution either! Evolution is as valid as religion. The only difference is religion is illogical and based on faith while evolution is slightly logical and based on genetics, fossils, and pretty colorful charts with skeletons pasted on them."

No, you're wrong. There is a theory of gravity. Do you want me to point you the the Wikipedia article? It could help you. Gravity and Evolution are the same type of thing. Evolution is far more valid than religions as it has been proven to occur.

[Phoenix]

Took the words right out of my mouth...

The chance of Abiogenesis occurring could well be a billion to one. There's several billion planets in our Galaxy ALONE. That sounds pretty good to me.

". Evolution on the other hand is an exuse to discount the existence of a God. It is founded on the belief that there is no God to make it happen. Thus it relies sole on natural selection, genetics, and constant freak accidents. Gravity and Evolution are not similar in the least. You've got Gravity which is a constant and infinite effect on us and everything, and then you have evolution, a theory started by someone to explain where humans came from because he didn't believe it was a God who'd done the act. There's no theory of Gravity folks! And there's no law of Evolution either! Evolution is as valid as religion. The only difference is religion is illogical and based on faith while evolution is slightly logical and based on genetics, fossils, and pretty colorful charts with skeletons pasted on them."

No, you're wrong. There is a theory of gravity. Do you want me to point you the the Wikipedia article? It could help you. Gravity and Evolution are the same type of thing. Evolution is far more valid than religions as it has been proven to occur.

I envy you. If I even mentioned wikipedia in one of my posts regarding the truth I'd be laughed right out of the forum. I do like that website though, right up there with howstuffworks.com. Anywho... Evolution and Gravity are only similar in that they are both "things" that swirl around in our thoughts.

That's why it's called the Law of Gravity

That's why it's called the theory of Evolution

Even if you link me to a place that says Gravity is a theory or Evolution is a fact, it doesn't mean they're correct. Think of the poor folks at creationist websites who's research is disgarded because they are accused of just being out to disprove evolution and not seek the truth. They might be correct in their findings but does anyone care? Just the Christians and then not always for the right reasons. Seeking the truth is the only reason for science to exist at all. So why settle for evolution based soley on evidence and a fear of creationism? If you really want to seek the truth, you have to be willing to accept that either we came from nothing by mere chance, or we came from a pretty powerful being. It wouldn't kill you to look at both sides of the matter with an open mind would it? It's not like you have to become a Christian if evolution is proven false.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I envy you. If I even mentioned wikipedia in one of my posts regarding the truth I'd be laughed right out of the forum. I do like that website though, right up there with howstuffworks.com. Anywho... Evolution and Gravity are only similar in that they are both "things" that swirl around in our thoughts.

That's why it's called the Law of Gravity

That's why it's called the theory of Evolution

Even if you link me to a place that says Gravity is a theory or Evolution is a fact, it doesn't mean they're correct. Think of the poor folks at creationist websites who's research is disgarded because they are accused of just being out to disprove evolution and not seek the truth. They might be correct in their findings but does anyone care? Just the Christians and then not always for the right reasons. Seeking the truth is the only reason for science to exist at all. So why settle for evolution based soley on evidence and a fear of creationism? If you really want to seek the truth, you have to be willing to accept that either we came from nothing by mere chance, or we came from a pretty powerful being. It wouldn't kill you to look at both sides of the matter with an open mind would it? It's not like you have to become a Christian if evolution is proven false.

Oh come the hell on. On average, Wikipedia is more accurate than the Encyclopedia Brittanica. There are always cited sources. Gravity is a theory, we've told you why. Just like Evolution.

For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet but we invoke theories of gravity to explain this occurrence. However, even inside the sciences the word theory picks out several different concepts dependent on the context. In casual speech scientists don't use the term theory in a particularly precise fashion, allowing historical accidents to determine whether a given body of scientific work is called a theory, law, principle or something else. For instance Einstein's relativity is usually called "the theory of relativity" while Newton's theory of gravity often is called "the law of gravity." In this kind of casual use by scientists the word theory can be used flexibly to refer to whatever kind of explanation or prediction is being examined. It is for this instance that a scientific theory is a claim based on a body of evidence.

That enough for you?

Evolution has FAR more evidence than Intelligent Design, so why should I consider Intelligent Design? Something with no evidence or backup is entirely worthless.

Seriously dude, learn your stuff first please. :D

[Kintenbo]

Oh come the hell on. On average, Wikipedia is more accurate than the Encyclopedia Brittanica. There are always cited sources. Gravity is a theory, we've told you why. Just like Evolution.

That enough for you?

Evolution has FAR more evidence than Intelligent Design, so why should I consider Intelligent Design? Something with no evidence or backup is entirely worthless.

Seriously dude, learn your stuff first please. :D

To be fair, Wikipedia has that whole "you can put whatever you want on it" problem. I'd personally just go to an edu website for accurate information. Even then, doesn't theory = there's evidence, but it's not proven 100% true? If so, what makes it any more valid than the belief in God/you name it?

Evolution has FAR more evidence than Intelligent Design, so why should I consider Intelligent Design?

What if there was evidence found for it? Then would you start considering it? Remember, assuming things can be a man's biggest mistake. The ideas of science change a lot over time, what is believed now in science can change completely 100, or maybe even just 10, years from now. Heck, it could be even less until a certain part of science changes completely.

[Defeatist Elitist]

To be fair, Wikipedia has that whole "you can put whatever you want on it" problem. I'd personally just go to an edu website for accurate information. Even then, doesn't theory = there's evidence, but it's not proven 100% true? If so, what makes it any more valid than the belief in God/you name it?

What if there was evidence found for it? Then would you start considering it? Remember, assuming things can be a man's biggest mistake. The ideas of science change a lot over time, what is believed now in science can change completely 100, or maybe even just 10, years from now. Heck, it could be even less until a certain part of science changes completely.

I'll give you some reading on this, because I'm not sure you're totally in the know. That's OK, MANY people aren't. This is a sad problem in our society.

This is a book written by the National Academy of Science, which is a group made up of Scientists from many fields who have been chosen by their peers for their great contributions. It answers many questions you might ask.

[Esau of Isaac]

To be fair, Wikipedia has that whole "you can put whatever you want on it" problem. I'd personally just go to an edu website for accurate information.

And then you have several hundred people patrolling the pages and making sure that they are accurate and properly referenced. Discounting it completely is unfair and ridiculous. I don't hold it to the exact same esteem as a scientific journal, but there is a fairly large amount of fair and accurate information.

Even then, doesn't theory = there's evidence, but it's not proven 100% true?

I'll state this again; you could have a time machine that traveled backwards in time and recorded the genealogy of every single living organism that has ever existed, it would not change the theory of evolution into a law, because that is not how evolution works. Evolution is fact; the theory of evolution is our method of explaining it. Just like gravity; it is a fact, but there are mathematical laws and worded theories to explain it. Do you understand the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory? Because a theory in no way means "an educated guess". It's pretty much as good as it gets.

If so, what makes it any more valid than the belief in God/you name it?

The fact that evolution has an extraordinarily large amount of evidence and there is zero evidence of God. This is like trying to discredit the theory of gravity in favor of invisible and intangible angels pulling us towards the ground. It's fucking ridiculous.

What if there was evidence found for it? Then would you start considering it? Remember, assuming things can be a man's biggest mistake. The ideas of science change a lot over time, what is believed now in science can change completely 100, or maybe even just 10, years from now. Heck, it could be even less until a certain part of science changes completely.

But until such a point when the entire scientific community is turned on its head, such a thing will not happen. But I'm telling you that it's not going to happen. In the same sense that Newton's ideas were not thrown out but merely eclipsed, that's about the worst that will ever happen to the current theory of evolution.

Edit: Ugh, I'll probably get to the rest later on tonight.

Edited December 1, 2008 by Esau of Isaac

[Phoenix]

Seriously dude, learn your stuff first please. :D

It's not my stuff, it's OUR stuff.

Anyway, my point is, I believe in gravity, it's causing all sorts of interesting things to happen in my home. I can't just bend over and accept evolution because there's way too much about it that still eats away at my BS alarm. Yeah religion does the same thing but that's even more reason to consider ALL possibilities. It's easy to say there's no evidence for religions or creationism when you discount anything said without looking at it. People need to wait til they hear the whole issue before they make up their minds. Another thing to try is careful and openminded study of both sides. I tried that and am closer to what I feel is the truth than I would be just blindly accepting what I was raised on. But yeah there is no way to disprove evolution even if evolution is false because the vast majority of people supporting evolution will just disgard any evidence found. That's life.

[Defeatist Elitist]

It's not my stuff, it's OUR stuff.

Anyway, my point is, I believe in gravity, it's causing all sorts of interesting things to happen in my home. I can't just bend over and accept evolution because there's way too much about it that still eats away at my BS alarm. Yeah religion does the same thing but that's even more reason to consider ALL possibilities. It's easy to say there's no evidence for religions or creationism when you discount anything said without looking at it. People need to wait til they hear the whole issue before they make up their minds. Another thing to try is careful and openminded study of both sides. I tried that and am closer to what I feel is the truth than I would be just blindly accepting what I was raised on. But yeah there is no way to disprove evolution even if evolution is false because the vast majority of people supporting evolution will just disgard any evidence found. That's life.

No, you don't understand. We have made medicines, etc, based on Evolutionary Biology. We have seen Evolution in action. It has a LOT of evidence.

And the point of evolution (and Science in general), is not to discredit Religion, but to uncover the truth of the world.

[Phoenix]

I didn't say to disregard religion I said to disregard God. Religion is not God, religion is a set of rules for worshipping said God.

Anywho it's this simple:

Not having proof there's a God is not proof that there isn't one.

The world used to be flat simply because there was no evidence known to man that it wasn't.

Then some poor bastard notices that if he looks up for 12 hours the stars fly in a circle.

Finally the evidence to support a spherical Earth is discovered upon further analysis. Just because you're not looking in the right places for the proof of something doesn't mean it's not out there.

Also I don't like modern medicine. They haven't cured anything since polio cause all they care about is money. Modern medicine is like a dirty bandage. You put it on and it covers up the problem so it stops bleeding for abit but now you've got an infection. I don't care what they made medicine based off of, it's not giving people the help they need.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I didn't say to disregard religion I said to disregard God. Religion is not God, religion is a set of rules for worshipping said God.

Anywho it's this simple:

Not having proof there's a God is not proof that there isn't one.

The world used to be flat simply because there was no evidence known to man that it wasn't.

Then some poor bastard notices that if he looks up for 12 hours the stars fly in a circle.

Finally the evidence to support a spherical Earth is discovered upon further analysis. Just because you're not looking in the right places for the proof of something doesn't mean it's not out there.

Also I don't like modern medicine. They haven't cured anything since polio cause all they care about is money. Modern medicine is like a dirty bandage. You put it on and it covers up the problem so it stops bleeding for abit but now you've got an infection. I don't care what they made medicine based off of, it's not giving people the help they need.

Oh come on dude. Some of your arguments are ridiculous.

Modern Medicine has done a lot. You want me to start LISTING things it's done?

Not having proof of God though, is reason enough for you to NOT consider him valid. Just like there's no evidence of an evil purple dragon living in my garage who wants to eat me all up. Therefore, I ignore it.